Tag: no new taxes

Categories
tax policy too much government

Many Thanks to Grover

Since the Super Committee failed to come up with the promised $1.2 trillion in pretend deficit reduction over the next decade, many in the nation’s capital blame Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist.

Our taxes — and even the taxes of people with the nerve to be wealthy — are not being increased. This, you must understand, is all Grover’s doing, the fault of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he “pushed” on more than 275 members of Congress.

His pledge articulates a simple, straightforward idea: Taxes are too high and politicians should stop increasing them. Incumbent politicians appear fearful of breaking this pledge. If they go back on their word, they risk being defeated come the next election.

Last Sunday, 60 Minutes’ correspondent Steve Kroft blurted out to Norquist, “You’ve got them by the short hairs!”

Norquist responded, “The voters do, yeah.”

Are we really supposed to be sad about the system of accountability known as elections?

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson whined that Norquist “may well be the most powerful man in America today.”

“The tax issue is the most powerful issue in American politics going back to the Tea Party,” Norquist explained.

If you think the federal government is too small and does too little, a pledge not to raise taxes makes scant sense. But if you think, like Norquist, that government is a whole lot bigger than it should be, pledging not to make it bigger still is a no-brainer.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies tax policy

But He Promised

Like the rest of us, politicians can honestly change their mind about an issue.

But when a presidential candidate “firmly” pledges to, say, never act to raise taxes of any kind on families earning less than $250,000 a year, and then reneges, that doesn’t quite count. And then when, soon after being elected, the politician pretends that his earlier pledge doesn’t mean what it plainly meant — or even pretends that he never made the pledge at all — one suspects that the original promise was really a fib, a falsehood. From the get-go.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos given last September during the health care debate, Barack Obama tried to escape his no-new-taxes pledge by asserting that the new taxes that would be imposed on Americans declining to buy health insurance under his health care plan would not in fact be taxes. With a straight face, Obama even disputed the dictionary definition of “tax” that Stephanopoulos recited to him.

Now we’re hearing from an administration official that the president never even made the pledge. According to White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, it was merely an expression of a “preference.” We’ll have to wait until a bipartisan commission (on how to tax us more) finishes its work before we learn whether it will be viable for Obama to hew to that “preference.”

Meanwhile, those who prefer truth can view the video proof of an actual pledge on YouTube.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy too much government

Words and Definitions

As a candidate, Barack Obama promised that he would not raise taxes on any but the wealthiest Americans. Make less than $250,000 a year? You’re home free under his administration.

I mean, not counting current federal levies.

But President Obama has all the ambitions of a big-spending liberal. And “big-spending” translates pretty quickly into “big-taxing.”

One of these projects is a massive new federal takeover of the health care industry, in the name of “universal coverage.” New taxes would be imposed. For example, anyone who refuses to sign up for health insurance in the new regime would be slammed with a hefty tax.

Obama denies that such taxes would in fact be taxes. He even rebuked George Stephanopoulos for citing a dictionary definition of the word. Leaping to the president’s defense, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agreed that the new taxes would not be taxes. “[W]hat we are saying,” Hoyer said, “is everybody will contribute . . . to making sure that health care options are available to all of our citizens.”

Try dispute that. It’s like arguing with fog. Columnist Jacob Sullum quotes Hoyer and observes, “So we’re talking about a legally required contribution that will be used to provide a government-arranged benefit. If only there were a shorter way of expressing that concept.”

Well, in searching for le mot juste, don’t tax yourself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.